If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How to win the war on poverty

In our opinion: How to win the war on poverty
By In Our Opinion
For the Deseret News
Published: Sunday, Jan. 12 2014

Lynda Johnson Robb, President Lyndon B. Johnson's daughter, right, joined by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others, speaks during an event on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014, marking the 50th anniversary of President Johnson's declaration of the War on Poverty.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Associated Press

The key to winning the war on poverty is to provide people opportunities to rise above handouts, to promote lasting marriages and to unlock the creative forces of freedom.
Much has been made of the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson?s declaration of a war on poverty ? something he did as part of his State of the Union address that year.

By some measures, government has spent at least $15 trillion on this war, and federal spending is 286 percent higher today than when LBJ and Congress fired the first shots. Yet even liberals anxious to extol the progress made since then say overall poverty has fallen only from 26 percent to 16 percent, according to some Columbia University economists. Others cite different figures to show no improvement at all.

But even the somewhat rosy view (shouldn?t $15 trillion buy more than that?) derives its results by figuring in government intervention, which means it counts people being propped up by welfare programs as out of poverty.

Writing for The Washington Post, Dylan Matthews says food stamps kept 4 million people out of poverty in 2012 alone. But can someone dependent on the government for food really be considered to be prospering? Shouldn?t the greater goal be to provide the incentives to help people rise up and become self-sufficient? And shouldn?t government be more involved in encouraging behavior that is proven to result in higher living standards?

The answer to both should be obvious. The second question, in particular, is packed with plenty of warning signs about trouble ahead.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has said marriage is the one behavior proven to end poverty. He is right, although the answer is not so simple as to somehow force everyone living together out of wedlock to tie the knot, as critics imply while oversimplifying the issue. Living together out of wedlock is a disastrous prelude to marriage. Most such schemes end in divorce, even if they do lead to marriage in the first place. The key to marriage lies in a quality courtship and a sense of commitment and loyalty that goes far beyond telling a partner you would like to take him or her for a test drive first.

In the United States, the declining marriage rate has not been an equal-opportunity failure. It strikes hardest at the least educated. Research by Charles Murray has shown that college-educated young people still marry at about an 84 percent rate, while those with less education do so at only about 48 percent.

Data from the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia shows that children from intact marriages are far more likely to attend and graduate from college, and subsequently earn high wages, than those from broken homes. But the difference is particularly stark for children in low-income families.

For these children, having married, committed parents may be the best hope for rising out of poverty. Children from broken homes are 82 percent more likely to live low-income situations than those from married households, according to the Heritage Foundation. They also are more likely to engage in harmful behavior of their own, including producing children out of wedlock.

Poverty has as many causes as it has faces. It can be linked to health, an inadequate education system and a host of other factors. A safety net of some kind likely always will be necessary. But government gets in the way when it produces a culture of dependency, or when it ties private enterprise in so much bureaucratic red tape it inhibits job growth.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee may have said it best recently when he said the war on poverty really began in 1776, not in 1964. The founders of this nation declared a God-given universal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and then established a government that fostered those rights.

Virtually all of recorded human history up to that point had been about wealth for a select few and poverty for the rest. Since then, the story has been quite different, not only here but in other nations that have adopted similar ideals.

Life expectancies have dramatically increased. Technology has expanded in unimaginable ways. Health care regularly produces miracles even kings couldn?t have hoped for in the past. Wages are up and prices are down, and leisure time has exploded.

Yes, many still suffer in deep poverty. But the key is to provide them and their children opportunities to rise above handouts, to promote lasting marriages and to unlock the creative forces of freedom.

the part of the story i like was "giving people an opportunity to rise above the handouts"

We aren't currently doing this. It needs to change. Here's one idea that both parties could agree on: Obama wants more infrastructure, repubs want people to work for their money... How about welfare and unemployment recipients rebuild the infrastructure?

the US has spent about 16 Trillion on the "war on poverty" and have nothing to show for all that money.

I would love to see where the money actually goes, 16 trill you could directly hand that out to everyone and that would bump lower class into middle class

Originally Posted by Big Puppy

the part of the story i like was "giving people an opportunity to rise above the handouts"

We aren't currently doing this. It needs to change. Here's one idea that both parties could agree on: Obama wants more infrastructure, repubs want people to work for their money... How about welfare and unemployment recipients rebuild the infrastructure?

if you collect welfare you should have to perform a community service several days a week like clean toilets at the DMV, that would motivate people to get a job

Democrats plan to demagogue income inequality and the wealth gap for political gain in this year?s elections. Most of what?s said about income inequality is stupid or, at best, ill-informed. Much to their disgrace, economists focusing on measures of income inequality bring little light to the issue. Let?s look at it.

Income is a result of something. As such, results alone cannot establish whether there is fairness or justice. Take a simple example to make the point. Suppose Tom, Dick and Harry play a weekly game of poker. The result is: Tom wins 75 percent of the time. Dick and Harry, respectively, win 15 percent and 10 percent of the time. Knowing only the game?s result permits us to say absolutely nothing as to whether there has been poker fairness or justice. Tom?s disproportionate winnings are consistent with his being either an astute player or a clever cheater.

To determine whether there has been poker justice, the game?s process must be examined. Process questions we might ask are: Were Hoyle?s rules obeyed; were the cards unmarked; were the cards dealt from the top of the deck; and did the players play voluntarily? If these questions yield affirmative answers, there was poker fairness and justice, regardless of the game?s result, even with Tom?s winning 75 percent of the time.

Similarly, income is a result of something. In a free society, for the most part, income is a result of one?s capacity to serve his fellow man and the value his fellow man places on that service. Say I mow your lawn and you pay me $50. That $50 might be seen as a certificate of performance. Why? It serves as evidence that I served my fellow man and enables me to make a claim on what he produces when I visit the grocer. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are multibillionaires. Just as in the case of my serving my fellow man by mowing his lawn, they served their fellow man. The difference is they served many more of their fellow men and did so far more effectively than I and hence have received many more ?certificates of performance,? which enables them to make greater claims on what their fellow man produces, such as big houses, cars and jets.

Brin and Page and people like them created wealth by producing services that improve the lives of millions upon millions of people all around the globe.

Should people who have improved our lives be held up to ridicule and scorn because they have higher income than most of us? Should Congress confiscate part of their wealth in the name of fairness and income redistribution?

Except in many instances when government rigs the game with crony capitalism, income is mostly a result of one?s productivity and the value that people place on that productivity. Far more important than income inequality is productivity inequality. That suggests that if there?s anything to be done about income inequality, we should focus on how to give people greater capacity to serve their fellow man, namely raise their productivity.

To accomplish that goal, let?s look at a few things that we shouldn?t do. Becoming a taxicab owner-operator lies within the grasp of many, but in New York City, one must be able to get a license (medallion), which costs $700,000. There are hundreds of examples of government restrictions that reduce opportunity. What about the grossly fraudulent education received by so many minority youngsters? And then we handicap them further with laws that mandate that businesses pay them wages that exceed their productivity, which denies them on-the-job training.

Think back to my poker example. If one is concerned about the game?s result, which is more just, taking some of Tom?s winnings and redistributing them to Dick and Harry or teaching Dick and Harry how to play better? If left to politicians, they?d prefer redistribution. That way, they could get their hands on some of Tom?s winnings. That?s far more rewarding to them than raising Dick?s and Harry?s productivity.

We can add controlling certain behaviors also - I am not saying all or even most of the poor have problems with drugs and booze, but it is prevalent. Should some of these people even be having children?

Being in poverty has been common unfortunately, for thousands of years. Hundreds of years ago, and of course today.

Some poster posted a pic of a "child dying from poverty." That photo is a croc. Kids dying? In Africa, yes. Other regions of the world yes. In the USA no. Lots of services, food and medical care.

Look back to not long ago: the 1930s, in the USA. Or, the 1850s in the USA. How about the 1870s? Very rough times back then, economically.

Humans know how to eat, survive? Die today? Then they are truly stupid and a drain on the gene pool.

Lots of poverty back then - but families GREW THEIR OWN FOOD. They had chickens, etc. Less medical technology, back then.

no DOMS...we must give her family other people's money so they can support her and continue reproducing at an astronomical rate

Almost all of those children they're talking about come from third-world countries. Places that are having a children a rate they haven't been able to sustain for over a hundred years. I've seen the ads about giving to children living in Africa since I was a kid. It's the same thing every time: a mother with eight or more children (probably from different fathers) stand their looking forlorn. We've given billions to people like that since the 80s and they're no better now than they were then.

Volunteer Moderators of the world unite, you have only your chains to loose!!!

Posts

1,806

Rep Points

831230315

Originally Posted by Warriorblaze

Only the father's bank account apparently

Warrior

Approx 38% of the people on welfare are white, so if we killing all of those mofo lazy white honkey folks just sittin around without jobs collecting welfare and sterilizing their children so they cant go on welfare would be a good way to start solving this problem.

Last edited by Bowden; 01-14-2014 at 04:02 PM.

PrunaGrow.com, the only Myostatin inhibiting geriatric Follistatin peptides that I trust 100%!!!
NOW 10% OFF ON ALL YOUR SUPPLIES!!! Promo Code: Oldfartrep#1
PRUNAGROW BODYBUILDING NUTRITION

Approx 38% of the people on welfare are white, so if we kill all of those mofo lazy white honkeys just sittin around without jobs collecting welfare and sterilize their children so they cant get on welfare then the problem would be cut by 38%

Volunteer Moderators of the world unite, you have only your chains to loose!!!

Posts

1,806

Rep Points

831230315

Originally Posted by Warriorblaze

Where did I say anything about race?

Warrior

You didn't.
I will bet you though that when the majority of White people stereotype welfare recipients, they don't think of white people, they think of people that are black or illegal immigrants from third world Latin American countries.

PrunaGrow.com, the only Myostatin inhibiting geriatric Follistatin peptides that I trust 100%!!!
NOW 10% OFF ON ALL YOUR SUPPLIES!!! Promo Code: Oldfartrep#1
PRUNAGROW BODYBUILDING NUTRITION

Volunteer Moderators of the world unite, you have only your chains to loose!!!

Posts

1,806

Rep Points

831230315

There is a huge demographic of White people that are on welfare.
Is part of the solution telling all of White people on welfare that they cannot reproduce unless they can afford children?
Or is that solution only applicable to non White people?

PrunaGrow.com, the only Myostatin inhibiting geriatric Follistatin peptides that I trust 100%!!!
NOW 10% OFF ON ALL YOUR SUPPLIES!!! Promo Code: Oldfartrep#1
PRUNAGROW BODYBUILDING NUTRITION

Approx 38% of the people on welfare are white, so if we killing all of those mofo lazy white honkey folks just sittin around without jobs collecting welfare and sterilizing their children so they cant go on welfare would be a good way to start solving this problem.

On Welfare by Percentage of Race
Percent of recipients who are white: 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black: 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic: 15.7 %

Per Capita on Welfare (percent on welfare divided by percent of population):
Per capita of recipients who are white: 0.53
Per capita of recipients who are black: 3.16
Per capita of recipients who are Hispanic: 0.96

Whites are barely over a third, whereas blacks are over three times and Hispanics are about one (though many are illegally and leach in other ways).

On Welfare by Percentage of Race
Percent of recipients who are white: 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black: 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic: 15.7 %

Per Capita on Welfare (percent on welfare divided by percent of population):
Per capita of recipients who are white: 0.53
Per capita of recipients who are black: 3.16
Per capita of recipients who are Hispanic: 0.96

Whites are barely over a third, whereas blacks are over three times and Hispanics are about one (though many are illegally and leach in other ways).

So yeah, nice bullshit misrepresentation you have there.

"misrepresentation" is in their play book too. page 271 fourth paragraph.

Just to name a few things here are some of the changes that have taken place in the US the past 30-40 years:

since the 70's the Fed government has not played an active role in wage determination and the 80's there was state sponsored union busting by the executive branch.

decline of purchasing power of the minimum wage

loss of tax progressivity of the overall US tax code

fragmentation of the US workforce

trade deficit and jobs being off-shored which amounts to wealth (in the form of lost labor wages) being transferred out of the US to other country's.

Deregulation of the markets and especially the financial sector and the "financialization" of the US economy. The changes in corporate governance, large firms do not have to invest in "productive" when they can just dump money in the wall street casino and make higher yields in return to maximize shareholder value, etc.

The change in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in 1974 I think which allowed pension funds, insurance carriers, etc. to invest in bonds and risky stocks.

The merging of 30% of the Fortune 500 firms in the past 30 years spured the growth of outsourcing labor and manufacturing for lower costs (higher profits) to increase shareholder value.

The cumulative growth of finance capital power and wages in the financial sector has concentrated political power in the US.

and then on top of all of that from say 1980-2008 then we had the 2nd largest negative economic event in US history after a period of weak economic growth after the previous recession in 2001. So basically all of the previous negative effects of the changes in the US economy were exacerbated and there is no policy that is going to be enacted to mitigate that.

The effects of the 2001 recession were mitigated because of the "fake" housing market boom, home values were still rising as was the "fake wealth" in home equity that US homeowners were tapping into to increase excess consumption.

William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

lol no... but if you reproduce and don't have the means to care for your children, others should not be forced to fork out the cash necessary to solve the problem you've created.

have you ever read a history book in your life? You can go to any country in the world today or look back in time at any era and the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder have ALWAYS had the highest birth rates.

William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.